Calling twr for engine tests
 

At my airport all engine test runs are to be approved by the tower. Engineers radio the ATC for permission each time the need to make a run up. Most of them are idle power runs, lasting a few minutes. Not posing any danger to other traffic, so it gets quite annoying to "approve" them.

Do your airfield procedures also require all the test runs to be approved? Or just the high-power ones?

At my airfield ALL engine tests are to be approved by the tower as well, whether idle, low or high power. The times of these are logged by ATC. I believe this is more due to potential noise complaints. For high power runs the aircraft will be positioned to a remoter part of the airfield. If we get a noise complaint, we can check in the book whether it was a low or high power one at the time.

Also, we will be aware that there is an aircraft with the engine running and can provide cautions to others if necessary, or if something goes wrong alert the fire service and know which aircraft, where, and how many POB.

Many moons ago when I worked in a room with a view, we had to approve engine runs of all descriptions. This mainly was due to 'ground safety issues'; particularly for 'on gate' runs. There were designated areas though where approval was not required, these included blast fences/deflectors and were designated as engine testing areas.

We had to get a safety car on site before approving runs when they were "on gate"; still one afternoon I saw a baggage cart driver drive around the safety car (which was blocking the 'on tarmac road' with lights flashing) and effectively drive under the tail of a 747 doing an idle speed engine run... Almost blew him off the tractor, it did blow the baggage containers off like dominoes, one by one as he continued to pass... All I could say to the safety officer was "unbelievable"... All he could say to me was, "Now I have to do lots of paperwork".

We have had helis get fire warnings on ground runs,with the resulting AFS callout.Look at the Eithad A346 that was written off after it ploughed into a wall during a high power engine run.(brake problem/failure)
I can't see why a call to ATC is ''annoying'' when if anything went wrong,ATC are the best people to get you help.:hmm:

Every ground run has to be pre approved by airfield ops, is given a code, then requires ATC approval for start. Times of commencement and finish are logged.
Largely because we are in a noise sensitive area, but also because knowing an aircraft is ground running enables us to notify vehicles etc in the vicinity. It doesn't matter what the level of the ground run is, safety is everything to us, but perhaps not in Poland. :hmm:

A lot depends on the size of the airfield and where the test is taking place. Where I worked, if the aircraft was on an apron, they would call ATC for approval. If it was in a maintenance area they would not.

Don't worry about safety here, it's also our priority. But taking the aircraft types, local apron/twy configuration and already existing engineers' safety procedures makes me think that approving some idle runs by tower is redundant. And before taking formal steps to allow omitting the approvals I'm courious if there are similar experiences somewhere in the world.

I won't help them a lot except pushing the Big Red Button. Engineer monitoring the run on site can press similar button on his portable radio. Guess who will be faster.

Thanks for all replies.

anecdote - engine runs
 

Many many years ago at a well known UK airport the airport management wanted to address noise complaints and make sure all runs, especially at night, were necessary by instructing ATC to record the name of the engineer requesting the run on R/T. Apart from a plethora of "John Smiths" it really started to fall apart when the " I'll tell you my name if you tell me yours" conversations started.

JB

All engine starts are approved by ATC, so why not an engine run?? Just treat it like any other aircraft.

Completely unrelated, I was looking through some old online accident reports for my current airfield (for whatever reason I shall keep to myself), and came across this (paraphrased):

A helicopter with a solo student on board (instructor to join later) started up on an apron out of sight of the control tower. The helicopter did his run-up checks and found himself suddenly airborne, in a controlled panic the pilot put the helicopter back on the ground... on its side significantly damaged... With no-one from the school watching, no-one in the tower aware of his start let alone his predicament, there he sat/lay on his side getting drenched in leaking fuel until a passing taxying aircraft asked the tower what had happened to the helicopter.

Suffice to say, the crash alarm was immediately pressed and the RFFS were despatched to 'an unknown incident' with unknown POB. If there had been a fire, the incident could've been much worse. Everyone was ok in the end. Although I'd imagine a bit shocked.

I reckon the above is good enough reason to call tower for start, or if not "start permission", at least, "for your information".

:ok:

It's not the same. When I as a GND controller approve a startup, I don't say it's safe to do - I only say there are no reasons (CTOT, queue for departure, runway closures etc.) to delay it. It means that if someone calls for an engine test on idle, I never have any reason to deny it - so the call is therefore redundant.

Cr@p. Vehicles are informed by red flashing beacon. Do you all these dozens of vehicles about every startup for departure? :rolleyes::ugh:

Where I work every engine run, whether high power or not and whether on the run bay or on stand, has to be notified to the Tower and I agree it’s annoying. I also believe it’s largely a waste of time. We don’t log them, and we only sporadically make a note of them, mainly in case we need to hand over the info to the oncoming Ground controller. Between midnight and 6am we can get several an hour on stand but if there’s nothing else flying the controller is not necessarily eyes out the window just in case there’s a fire. Our airfield ops have to approve them anyway so they are a) aware of the details and b) will refuse if there’s a noise issue.

I can see the point in being notified of high power runs on our dedicated run bay (viz A340 accident mentioned above) and helicopter rotors running tests but for everything else, pointless.

What portable radio would that be then? Don't use em anymore.

As I recall, the reason ATC are contacted is to ensure a "listening watch" is undertaken. ATC are aware of engines running and if someone shouts FIRE! over the RT, the ATCO will hopefully have a shufty out a window and send the cavalry. Assuming they have windows of course. :ok: